The language in which photographs are generally evaluated is extremely meager.
Sometimes it is parasitical on the vocabulary of painting: composition, light,
and so forth.
More often it consists in the vaguest sorts of judgments, as when photographs
are praised for being subtle, or interesting, or powerful, or complex, or
simple, or—a favorite—deceptively simple.
The reason the language is poor is not fortuitous: say, the absence of a rich
tradition of photographic criticism. It is something inherent in photography
itself, whenever it is viewed as an art. Photography proposes a process of
imagination and an appeal to taste quite different from that of painting (at
least as traditionally conceived). Indeed, the difference between a good
photograph and a bad photograph is not at all like the difference between a good
and a bad painting.
